05.12.08
Damnit
They announced the Lisbon Treaty voting day for June 12th. I won’t be here to VOTE YES and counteract the No votes of the wilfully contrarian.
Can someone who was going to Vote No abstain please?
An Irish woman’s social, political and domestic commentary
Bad Behavior has blocked 495 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Pete said,
May 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WTF THE LISBON TREATY IS ALL ABOUT?
Sarah said,
May 12, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Here’s the deal: The EU is enlarging, so the old rules about decision making and some of the institutions don’t work so well any more. e.g vetos apply to practically everything; EVERY country is entitled to a commissioner; lots of people want to enable the EU to adopt a common position on criminal matters and foreign policy. There’s also more pressure to make the EU “more democratic” and really just work more efficiently.
SO the Lisbon Treaty is a series of amendments to various treaties and institutions.
For example: it means that every country within the EU will be entitled to a commissioner 10 years out of every 15. So EVERY country will be without a commissioner for 5 years. Now, on the one hand, this is a bit of a pain since we like having our man at the table. On the other hand, when commissioners are appointed their job is to represent the ENTIRE EU in a particular portfolio – so the competition commissioner works for competition throughout the EU. So while it is nice having a rep there, it doesn’t mean the commissioner negotiates on our behalf during various, em, negotiations. That’s what the Ministers do at the meetings of the Council of Europe.
Opponents say that Ireland is now “less equal” than before under the new terms, but here’s the thing, when we first joined the EU, the bigger countries had two commissioners and smaller ones only one. That moved under a previous treaty to one each, and now it moves to EVERYONE giving up a commissioner for 1/3 of the time, so we will still be on equal terms with all other members. Its an example of one of compromises that ALL other countries agreed to so that we stop appointing commissioners like Junior Ministers – jobs for the sake of jobs.
Some clarifications – the treaty has NOTHING to do with and will not effect
- harmonisation of direct taxes
- defence issues (triple lock still applies)
- abortion
- neutrality
- agriculture negotiations at the WTO
One thing I like about the treaty is that a prosecutor will be appointed to chase up fraud issues – which the EU could do little about til now.
It also creates institutions and laws that will make prosecutions for drug and human trafficking across EU borders much easier. Badly needed.
The people who are against Lisbon are either Sinn Fein types who have been against EVERYTHING to do with Europe, regardless of its positive influence on us or right wing business types like Declan Ganley and Ulick McEvaddy. e.g McEvaddy runs an airline business using old planes, which under EU environmental law will be banned or penalised or something because they don’t conform to modern emissions standards.
Darren said,
May 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Sarah, that was very useful and concise. Thank you.
betty said,
May 12, 2008 at 5:10 pm
One of my issues with Lisbon is that at present there is plenty of inefficiency and waste in the EU.With the enlarged Eu this will morph into corruption and fraud.The opening statement of Lisbon should hsve stated as a core principle that the highest standard of integrity and honour would be expected from elected and appointed officials and any deviations from this standard would be met with swift retribution. How can high standards be expected from say olive farmers or sheep farmers if the top level don’t give leadership by their high standards and earn the moral authority needed to police this enormous bloc. I fear the prosocuter will just chase fraud issues at local levels when Lisbon should have stated the core principle of honesty at all levels.Will pragmatism take precedence over honour.????
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I will vote no purely because I don’t understand it and I won’t be forced into voting for pig in a poke out of fear.
I will assert my democratic right to vote no to a treaty that I do not understand.
This is a democracy.
Sarah said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:10 pm
That’s bolox Enf.
What do you want? Dick Roche to show up on your doorstep and personally explain it?
http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/
There are LOADS of public meetings being held throughout the country with speakers from both sides attending them.
Get up off your arse and find out about it. You have a duty to inform yourself.
This is a democracy. Use it.
Sarah said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Here are more events
http://www.forumoneurope.ie/index.asp?locID=482&docID=-1
Sam Bowman said,
May 12, 2008 at 9:34 pm
I’m anti-Treaty, but unfortunately I’ll be on holiday for polling day. If you’re still looking for a “No” counterpart, I’m your man!
Enf said,
May 12, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Jesus Christ Almighty. Keep Roche the hell away from my door. I will hand garlic up.
Even if it does not get through it will be put through again like the Nice treaty when we got it “wrong”.
I will go and find out but to bully a nation with a 22.6% functional illiteracy rate between 16 and 65 years into voting for a treaty that it is impossible to read straight through.
I wouldn’t sign a contract I don’t fully understand and I won’t vote yes to a treaty under duress. I have read the booklet that came in the door and I have tried to listen to the politicians tell me its my duty to vote Yes.
I do not understand fully what is in the 287 page document that I downloaded. I don’t know anyone who has a family and a job who has the time or inclination to fully work this thing out without taking time off to read and study it.
This thing is written in an obscure dialect of Klingon. My printer would be going for weeks if I printed and read every document that it amends. There is no flow nor is there any consideration given to the education level of the voter.
It is not life and death and we will not be ejected from the EU nor pushed out further into the Atlantic if we vote no. If it is incomprehensible we should send it back until the man on the street can understand exactly what is in it. This is called informed consent. To understand the treaty you would need to have to hand the treaties that it amends and a legal dictionary.
This is what I call a pig in a poke.
I am against any treaty that transfers powers to others in Europe we do not elect, cannot remove, and who don’t have to listen to us. We already lost control of our currency.
There is a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) spread about about this treaty.
If I don’t understand it I won’t vote for it and maybe even voting against it would be a bad idea too but to be forced into a yes is giving into fear. If this was a contract and you signed it not knowing what it contains under duress it would be a voidable contract.
Irish Election » Lisbon - A month to go said,
May 12, 2008 at 10:37 pm
[...] Carey is looking for no voter to abstain on the vote, as she won’t be around to vote yes. Credo, Catholic Journal [...]
Colman said,
May 13, 2008 at 8:57 am
Can anyone tell me how it is possible to have a simple document encompassing the EU legal structures and the assorted compromises that have been made between 27 member states?
Sarah, the anti-crowd consist mainly of the Sinn Fein types and the suppliers to the US government that are backing Libertas. Both Declan Ganley and Ulick McEvaddy have critical business relationships with the US defence establishment, which strikes me as something of coincidence.
Colman said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:06 am
Come to think of it, has anyone seen any compelling anti-Lisbon Treaty arguments?
The gist of the Sinn Fein types is understandable – a free Ireland under the rule of the Sinn Fein Revolutionary Council (or however that translates in Irish) being their ideal world anyway – but most of the anti-stuff I’ve come across has been whining -”it’s too hard for me to read” , “it’s too long” – lies about neutrality, abortion or whatever, extremist free-market economic nonsense or accusations about it being good for nameless elites issued by shadowy organisations run by millionaires.
Sarah said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:17 am
Have you ever read the Finance Bill which our elected representatives pass each year? It runs to hundreds of pages too. Sorry guys, but legislation is complicated. Its not all one line referendum changes – and look at the trouble they’ve landed us in.
The EU has flaws but overall its a great thing. The Euro for starters. Look at all the trouble and expense that saves business and individuals on a day to basis. I think its great. If only the Brits would get into it.
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:22 am
Sarah,
I’d add the following to your summary:
There will be a new role of president of the European Council whose tenure will be 2 1/2 years, renewable once. The president will be elected by the European Council (ie heads of government and state) using QMV.
And a position of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security who will also be the vice pres of the commission. Also elected by European Council by QMV.
I would also point out that the European Parliament and National parliaments are given an enhance role in some areas. There is a genuine effort to tie the national parliaments in to the Eu legislative procudure. And the Eu parliament itself has a couple of additional powers.
I think people who talk about the Eu democratic deficit need to look at the evolution of the Eu from a completely undemocratic though absolutely necessary agreement between rival states after the second world war, evolving to bring in gradually more democracy as the process deepened. The European parliament was created in 1979. And in several of the recent treaties, including Nice, the EU parliament was (gradually) given more of a role. Lisbon pushes that forward another step.
Pete said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:04 am
Sarah, your description was more comprehensible than any other explanation that I’ve read, thanks. Looking at some of the points:
>Some clarifications – the treaty has NOTHING to do with and will not effect
>- harmonisation of direct taxes
This seems to be the main point of conflict. I assume no Irish politician would be stupid enough to support something that would allow EU-wide corporate tax harmonisation, but several politicians in other EU countries seem pretty sure that this treaty will allow just that.
- defence issues (triple lock still applies)
Yep, the “only with UN Consent” thing seems solid, and anyway Ireland is militarily insignificant.
- abortion
Not one I’m worried about.
- neutrality
Irish “neutrality” is long gone anyway.
- agriculture negotiations at the WTO
Don’t know or care. Been listening to farmers moan for way too many years now.
>It also creates institutions and laws that will make prosecutions for drug >and human trafficking across EU borders much easier. Badly needed
Sound like a good thing alright. A common approach to immigration & asylum seekers would be good too.
>The EU has flaws but overall its a great thing. The Euro for starters.
Have to disagree with you about the Euro. It means that we can no longer use interest rates to smooth out the ups and downs of the economic cycle. Therefore we’ll get much bigger booms (the last 10 years) and busts (the next X years) than we would otherwise have got. You might change your mind about the Euro when people you know find themselves with soaring mortgage payments and no jobs!
John said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:40 am
I have voted Yes in all referenda up to now. However I do not like the way the Dutch and the French who voted No to the E.U constitution are now being bypassed by their politicians. There is a lot of scaremongering by our politicians. If we vote no they will have another referendum as they did with the Nice treaty. The political establishment in all countries seem arrogant.The E.U process does not feel very democratic.
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:59 am
Pete,
You are right that the Euro has the disadvantage that we are not in control of currency. However, I’d make a few observations.
Until 1979 the Irish pound was effectively fixed to Sterling. We had monetary union with the Uk if you like. From ‘79 to ‘99 our curreny was independent (actually, for the latter period of the 90s that’s not strictly true either since we had joined the (Exchange Rate Mechanism) ERM which was an effort to keep european currencies from fluctuating outside a certain limit around a cenrtal band. The idea was to hold the rates in an effort to make for convergence towards monetary union). But looking at the period ‘79 to say ‘92 (Maastricht), it’s not exactly a happy period in the economic life of Ireland.
The other observation I’d make is a thought experiment. Had we not been in the Eu during the celtic tiger and had we significantly raised rates on an imaginary pound, the result would have been a significant appreciation of the pound against both sterling and the dollar which would have meant a very serious check on competitiveness. This would most likely have happened during the 2nd half of the tiger, in an effort to control inflation and deflate the contruction bubble. But that was precisely a time when our competitiveness was already falling fairly sharply. It is possible to argue that it would have resulted in a significant deterioration in the economy.
The other point is that there certainly were other measures the government could have employed to deal with the bubble in housing, though of course none as directly effective as increasing the price of money.
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:27 am
Another observation actually is to do with our external trade. In terms of exports, since joining the EU (EEC) the % of Ireland’s exports going to the UK has steadily fallen and while that to the EU has steadily increased. Naturally enough, yet the figures are dramatic:
% of Irish Exports to:
—————–
UK EU US
63 11 13 (1970)
18 45 18 (2007)
With 45% of our trade now with the EU the importance of not having wild currency fluctations with the EU trading block is more important than not having fluctations against say Sterling.
Sarah said,
May 13, 2008 at 11:29 am
One thing the government could have done to control house prices was limit the amount of money institutions could lend. There used to be rules that you could only borrow 2.5 times the salary of the chief earner. They could’ve banned the 100% mortgage, the 40 year term, borrowing for stamp duty. There were a lot of options outside of raising interest rates.
I have to confess I am not without misgivings, particularly in relation to agriculture. I know its easy to dismiss whining farmers but the current WTO round has massive implications for developing countries and for our agriculture. If the wrong decisions are made food security and quality IS at risk in Europe. If you think that’s scaremongering look at what the biofuel industry is doing to food prices. And that sadistic idiot Mandelson is in charge. Does voting for Lisbon endorse him in an indirect way? Sadly I think yes. Will a No vote stop him from screwing up? I don’t know, but I doubt it.
I hate to resort to the negative arguments but the other countries can proceed onto other projects without Ireland through the enhanced co-operation option. In other words, if we vote no, they could go ahead and work on the drug and human trafficking aspects without us. Sort of like the Schengen Agreement meant other countries dispensed with passport control whereas we were outside that.
John Bruton, whom I’ve heard speak at a meeting recently makes one argument, that to me overcomes my misgivings – as long as we are at the table we can influence the outcome. If we absent ourselves, as Britain so often does, then the decisions are made anyway, but without our input. He says Ireland is at a massive advantage to other countries as english is our native language and english is the language of both diplomacy and business. But as the Brits are so negative, it means the Irish are always best placed to lead negotiations and get their people appointed to key positions within the Commission – Irish people have been the last two SecGens AFAIK.
So when I worry about fraud, about foreign policy machinations, about the ECB, I remember, we can do nothing about these issues if we aren’t around the table. If we vote no and the other countries proceed with enhanced co-operation, they can’t force anything on us, e.g tax harmonisation or laws BUT they will end up affecting us anyway. Norway is a good example of that. I think they are in the EMU, so can’t trade with Europe unless they obey all their laws and standards, but don’t get to negotiate when those agreements are being hammered out.
Finally I look to history. The fact of the matter is that on so many issues which count, equal pay, the right of married women to work, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the environment, dumping, water, Ireland has been forced to act for the better by the EU. It is a force for good, not completely, but significantly.
Electron said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Sarah, you’re right, law is complicated and that’s why I’m voting against this treaty . There’s nothing black and white in there to feel secure about – we could be isolated again, it‘s too dodgy. Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas!
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Electron
law is complicated and that’s why I’m voting against this treaty. Are you serious? Try to read some of our statutes, even those drafted in recent years with an effort to make them a tiny bit more accessable? Would you vote us back to the stone age?
Like Sarah says about those who cannot get information, get off your ass, get some of the excellent and abundant information on this treaty, then make an informed choice. Anything less is shamefully undemocratic, selfish, and plain stupid.
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Shamefully undemocratic? How so?
Tom Cosgrave said,
May 13, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I am voting no. I hate the idea that Ireland is the only country where the electorate gets to vote on this. Crotty should be EU law, not Irish law, it just doesn’t sit well with me.
If other electorates were voting on it, then I’d more than likely vote yes.
Electron said,
May 13, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Tomaltach, you ,as a trained engineer know that the sun has a 99.99 —% chance of rising on our eastern horizon tomorrow morning – that’s what I call security – Statute law on the other hand, is a human endeavour that is open to interpretation in both time and place and in most advanced democratic societies it can be tweaked from time to time – not so in the Lisbon Treaty case and there I rest my case.
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 1:39 pm
enf,
It is plain stupid to make any important decision in life without doing your best to get the right information. The same for democracy. If as a collective people didn’t inform themselves about democratic decisions, the outcome would rarely be in their interests. Essentially you are casting a vote at random. Hardly democracy at its best.
Tom,
I see your point. But why should our decision on Lisbon be influenced by the way in which other elected governments decided to ratify it? Some countries simply don’t hold referenda. They are strictly representative democracies. In fact, there is a good argument that representative democracy for international treaties is the more effective. The argument has holes I know. But in Ireland we give very important jobs to our elected representatives, jobs which are far far more important and while will impact far more on our lives than anything in Lisbon, which is certainly not among the big European Treaties. At the extreme end, we entrust our elected representatives with War and Peace. We entrust them with building our health service. We entrust them with our educational system. The outcome may not be what we want, but while many would argue for a change of minister few would argue that we should run the Health service by referendum.
Having said that, I think the big downfall with the referendum is back to the original issue in this comment: getting people to engage. Getting people informed. Getting people to come into the process properly.
For the coming referendum, the problem is not that people don’t understand the treaty – it’s that they don’t understand the EU full stop. Both EU and national leaders have failed down the years to explain the basics of how the EU operates. Now we are playing catch up. No matter what your view of the EU, our membership has had a lasting impact on the course of this country and will be a big factor in shaping our future. It is only right that we would have a fair idea how the thing works.
If anything, national politicians have worked against this kind of pedagogy by remaining silent when positive European measures are rolled out, and in cases where things aren’t going well, blaming Europe. An example is the French government lately trying to off load their (recent) shabby economic record on the ECB. Oh, they cried, if only we had the power to set our own interest rates. Yea right.
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Electron,
You are right, statute law is tweaked from Time to Time. But the EU Treaties do now set out the equivalent to our statute law. In General, and this especially applies to Lisbon, they set out which institutions get involved in shaping EU law, in which areas, and how. Lisbon therefore is akin to constitutional law. (Shock horror, constitutional?). Actual Eu law comes in the form of regulations and directives. Which can be and are amended.
Lisbon is not of course introducing the notion of ‘constitution. The sum of the existing Treaties is effectively the constitutional framework of the Union. Constitutions don’t change all that frequently, while statutes are routine.
You mention tweaking. Lisbon can be tweaked later, but only tweaked. Any major change requires a full renogiation and agreement from all members – it should be no other way.
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 1:50 pm
typo. opening is *But the EU Treaties do not set out the equivalent to our statute law*
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I still think that the treaty is worded above the literacy level of the country. We are being asked to vote Yes or No to a 300 page document.
Is it really so selfish to say “hang on, I don’t follow, please explain it to me better”.
I think that the key thing missing from the debate here is the political classes lack of respect for the voter. The voter isn’t stupid but an alarming number of people do not have the skills to read the document.
Pythagorean Theorem: 24 words
The Lord’s Prayer: 66 words
Archimedes’ Principle: 67 words
The 10 Commandments: 179 words
The Gettysburg Address: 186 words
The proclamation was 475 words
The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words
The U.S. Government regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words
This treaty according to MS word is over 77,000 words.
How in all that is holy can we be expected to read, understand and give an informed yes or no answer to such a document.
Its like reading the phonebook and saying Yes or No to it.
Also holding the referendum on a Thursday to limit the vote is cynical. The Government knows well that a lot of bog trotters won’t bother going home to vote because it is mid week and the electoral register is a total and utter mess. There is no incentive to fix this mess because it would result in more people being able to vote and the vote being more unpredictable.
I think we need to sort out the electoral register and to have votes at the weekend to ensure people have an opportunity to carry out their democratic right. Hitting me or those of us who are thinking of voting no with the shitty end of a pointy stick for exercising our right to vote no or whatever is bullying.
I do not understand the full text. I do not understand what I am being asked to say Yes to.
Andrew Lawlor said,
May 13, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I’ve just had a quick run through the Lisbon Treaty. The full text of the proposed treaty can be downloaded but, to be honest, unless you are a constitutional lawyer or an expert in contract law I wouldn’t bother. It only takes a brief perusal of the document to realise that it is utterly impenetrable to the ordinary layman.Try this for size…
292) Article 310 shall become Article 188 M.
293) Article 311 shall be repealed. A new Article 311a shall be inserted, with the wording of
Article 299(2), first subparagraph, and Article 299(3) to (6); the text shall be amended as follows:
(a) the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 and paragraphs 3 to 6 shall be renumbered 1 to 5
and the following new introductory wording shall be inserted at the beginning of the Article: “In addition to the provisions of Article 49 C of the Treaty on European Union relating to the territorial scope of the Treaties, the following provisions shall apply:”
Or how about this…
8. Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 9.2, 10.1, 10.3, 11.2, 12.1, 14, 16, 18 to 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30 to 34, 50 and 52 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank (’the Statute’) shall not apply to the United Kingdom. In those Articles, references to the Community or the Member States shall not include the United Kingdom and references to national central banks or shareholders shall not include the Bank of England. References in Articles 10.3 and 30.2 of the Statute to ’subscribed capital of the ECB’ shall not include capital subscribed by the Bank of England.
That doesn’t trip easily off the tongue either.
The second passage, however, is not from the Lisbon Treaty. It is taken from the treaty of Rome, originally enacted in 1957 and subsequently amended by Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice among others. On the 10th May 1972 the Irish electorate voted to join the EEC and I would doubt very much if many of the one million plus who voted yes read any part of the Treaty of Rome.
The argument that we should reject the Lisbon treaty because it cannot be easily read is a bit of a red herring. How many of those who say ‘I wouldn’t sign a legal document if I couldn’t understand it,’ ever read the terms and conditions when they take out a bank loan or buy a concert ticket on Ticketmaster or sign up for a Gmail account?
Joining the EEC in 1973 was undoubtedly the greatest thing that ever happened to this country. From that one act (eventually) flowed the economic success we have seen in recent years and the modernising of our nation. The establishment of many basic human rights, which we now take for granted, such as equal pay for women, have stemmed from our membership of the EU. In 1972 we did not need to know the intricate details of the Treaty of Rome to know that joining would be good for Ireland. Instead we listened to an informed debate on the pros and cons and made our choices accordingly.
Similarly, we do not need to read every word of the Lisbon treaty to make a decision on how we should vote this time. There is an overload of information in the public sphere about this treaty and what it will mean to Ireland and to Europe.
(Incidentally, if you were paying any attention to Libertas and their campaign against the treaty I would strongly recommend that you should read this excellent article by Chekov Feeny over at Indymedia.)
I am leaning towards a yes vote but I have three weeks to listen to the arguments from both sides before I finally make up my mind. I do feel, however, that if the government parties do not make a serious change to their campaign that he treaty will be rejected. The government’s tactics so far have been extremely negative and bear all the hallmarks of a scare-mongering campaign, which I believe will not go down well with the electorate. Day after day we hear ministers predicting dire consequences for Ireland if we reject the treaty. The utter lack of specifics as to the nature of these consequences will only lead the electorate to believe that they are being bullied into voting yes, which will result in a backlash no vote. If the treaty is as good as the yes campaign says it is then let them tell us exactly how it will benefit us. Let them outline in detail what effect the treaty will have on our lives. More importantly, tell us what the treaty will not do. The referendum Commision’s website is particularly disappointing and very short on real information.
I do believe that Europe has been extremely good for Ireland and if this treaty does, as we are told, make the EU more effective and more efficient then I will be voting yes.
So my challenge to both sides is simply this…
…convince me.
Andrew Lawlor said,
May 13, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Chekov Feeney’s piece can be found here http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311
Sarah said,
May 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Great point Andrew and that Feeney piece is great. Phoenix had something like it too recently.
And much relieved that Sam won’t be around
Electron said,
May 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Maybe libertas has its own agenda, that’s their business – coming back to ordinary people’s concerns, there remains a huge element of trust with a yes vote. Can we entrust our future to the good will of our larger neighbours ? – for me, that is the real question at the core of Lisbon. In history, we had an act of union that took us from poverty to abject poverty. If we had a reasonable degree of homogeny among the participants, there would be less risk involved, but unfortunately that is not the case.
Last night’s treatment of the subject on Questions and Answers was pathetic – nobody had a believable answer about the veto issue – to most voters this is crucial and they’ll most likely take Cowen’s own advice on all matters dubious – “when in doubt, leave them out”
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 4:08 pm
If I could return to the issue of the failure of the EU and national governments down the years to make people aware of how the EU operates and our interactions with it.
Today at lunch I had a discussion with a colleague who was passionately against Lisbon. Fair enough. But when I asked to name a number of significant areas where Europe has had a negative effect in recent years, she made a general list of complaints about everything and anything that isn’t right in Ireland – but all of which were down to the Irish government. The cost of childcare is one example she listed.
The other thing is she kept saying “I don’t want the situation to arise where decisions are made at the EU level and we cannot decide for ourselves”. Hang on a minute. We are already signed up members of the Union and in a broad range of areas, the key decisions are taken at Eu level. For her, it was as if Lisbon would mean joining the European union for the first time. She even mentioned the surrender of our independence. As if today we are a free independent nation, sheltered from the harsh winds of globalistation, and tomorrow, if we agree to Lisbon, we’ll be throwing it all away.
I cite this example because I think there is a general lack of awareness about where the EU is at today, never mind Lisbon.
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I just want to know what parallel universe it is possible to cast your vote and be unpatriotic.
You can have any colour you want as long as it is black.
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm
And if it is so important to you Sarah why don’t you stay and vote.
Apologies if Bertie didn’t ask you when was convenient.
Sarah said,
May 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“Can we entrust our future to the good will of our larger neighbours ? – for me, that is the real question at the core of Lisbon”.
No its not. Everything at EU level is negotiated and we have a veto over key areas.
As for me staying to vote. I can’t. It’s a work gig, arranged weeks ago. I am sickened, but that’s life.
By the way another aspect of Lisbon is that more powers are being given to the European Parliament so it narrows the democratic deficit.
OR here’s another one.
Right now European law is initiated by the commission and negotiated by the council of ministers. Then its passed and sent to the nation states to be implemented. Under Lisbon all draft legislation must be sent to the national parliaments to be debated THEN sent back to be ratified by the Ministers at the Council. So again, the deficit is narrowed because national parliaments will have a bigger and more direct say in legislation. So instead of the FnFers agreeing to something in a corridor in Brussels, it HAS to be put through the Dail first.
I think that’s pretty good.
Sarah said,
May 13, 2008 at 4:36 pm
And the only reason I know this is because I went to a public meeting. Everyone should go.
Tomaltach said,
May 13, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Sarah,
I agree that the treaty provides an enhanced role for national parliaments. Certainly to be welcomed. As I understand there are three areas where the role of national parliaments is enhanced:
National parliaments can now employ what’s called a yellow card system if they fell a particular piece of proposed Eu legislation violates the subsidiarity principle. i.e if they feel it’s something that should not be handled at Eu level, but which can be dealt with locally. In short, if at least 1/3 of national parliaments take this view the draft must be reviewed. If at least 1/2 of national parliaments take this view the draft, if not amended, is passed up to Council and to Parliament where they decide using co-decision
Another area where the national parliaments come in is where the Eu proposes to change an existing area from veto to QMV. In such cases, while Council must reach unanimity, a single national parliament can also veto the move.
Finally, as you say, all EU legislation and the legislative schedule must be forward to National parliaments. However, as far as I understand it, if it doesn’t fall within one of the areas above (i.e doesn’t violate subsidiarity and isn’t about changing the Eu competence) then the national parliaments have no influence on the decision. (Though that is probably correct under the thinking that if it’s actually an Eu competence, and it’s not changing Eu competence, then it’s the Eu institutions which should make the law)
Electron said,
May 13, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Sarah, for you it all appears to be straightforward and workable, but from my own experience of the present arrangement, there are tensions and uncertainty about some fundamental issues – like the internal market – this is supposed to be a core value, but there are still restrictions through the failure to harmonize standards by some older member states. That’s where we’re at now and not some utopia where everybody rolls over to accommodate their neighbour – dream on!
Crocodile said,
May 13, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Can someone explain to me the Joe Higgins argument about the Treaty meaning more economic liberalisation being imposed on us, particularly when it comes to private supply of public services?
Robert Synnott said,
May 13, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I shall be voting yes (despite scary poster of Enda Kenny urging me to do so); perhaps I could simply vote twice.
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Vote early and vote often.
Andrew Lawlor said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:11 pm
As I have said, membership of the European Union has been a wonderful thing for this country. I was four years old when we joined and for all of my lifetime since we have been ‘good’ Europeans. We have prided ourselves very much on how we have embraced the European project. Through all of this time we busyed ourselves spending billions of German Deutchmarks and French Francs and Pounds Sterling on new roads and drainage schemes and farmers and all sorts of infrastructure. Almost everybody agreed that the EEC was fantastic. It is interesting to see how many people have now come around to the view that Europe is not such a good idea after all (After all the money has been spent and we now have to start contributing to the EU purse-strings to help our newer European neighbours to develop their own infrastructure)
The European project has not become a bad idea overnight. As far as I can tell not much will change on a day to day basis for the man and woman in the street if we ratify this treaty.
What has changed, however, is the fabric of our society. Contrast the heady days of our pride at giving eight million to Live Aid with the nauseating rush for €600 red soled shoes in Dublin this week. We have gotten a little meaner, a little more distrustful, a little more vulgar in recent years and this, I believe, makes us more fearful if someone like Libertas or Sinn Fein tells us that the bogeyman from Brussells is coming to take it all away from us.
European membership has been very good for this country. We have not always been very good for Europe. How many million (billions?) did Irish farmers and meat barons fiddle from CAP over the years?
The way the issue is being used by vested interests like the IFA and the taxi industry does not do us proud at all. If we do reject this treaty we should try to be sure that at least we are doing it for the right reasons.
BTW. I saw a poster in Dublin today that said ‘People Died for your Freedom, Don’t throw it away.’ I was driving and could not seethe name of the group sponsoring the poster. Would it not be somewhat ironic if it was the Shinners?
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:37 pm
i am not doubting that the European project was a good idea. At least it forced us out of the self-imposed recession we gleefully brought upon ourselves.
I don’t see how voting no is turning my back on that though. I still think that if I don’t understand fully what I am saying yes or no to I should err on the side of caution and say no.
No because the way it was presented was not good enough. Not well enough explained and if you stand for nothing you will stand for anything. Who knows what other shite they will throw out to us if we pass this.
They need to respect the voter, the man on the street who is part of their big project. Who foots the bill and who they say it is designed for. If they can’t say what it is and the Taoiseach even says he hasn’t read it then why should I Joe Soap sign on the dotted line?
Sarah said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Enf, I accept that point. ” I don’t see how voting no is turning my back on that though.”
I’ve dabbled with that…well, we’ve come this far and its grand. Let’s not go any further. Why do we need more countries in?”
One answer is that its not fair of us to deny other countries the chance to achieve what we have. Isn’t there a moral argument that we should give all those other Eastern Europeans a fair crack? And remember trade and diplomacy DOES prevent wars. I know the EU fucked up over Yugoslavia, and tried to screw Cyprus, but once you’re in, you’re in and it helps peace and food security.
The second point is that we could say no, and then the others will proceed with the enhanced co-operation. So we won’t stop others from doing anything – we’ll just leave ourselves outside the circle. And that’s not good.
One other thing, everyone’s worried about direct taxation..how about harmonising VRT? We’re getting totally screwed on it. Ever think there are more advantages to be gained?
Sarah said,
May 13, 2008 at 9:50 pm
the joe higgins thing I don’t know about.
we’ll ask someone.
standby.
Electron said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Forget about the VRT – Harmonize tax and we’re gone – that has to happen with further integration otherwise there’s no point to moving any closer ? and it would be morally right – this project is more serious than some fancy terminology and we have to think hard and fast about our capability of surviving without multinationals – do we really have what it takes? – it may be okay for civil servants, but what about the ordinary joe?
enf said,
May 13, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Tell that to the Romanians. The EU “citizens”
Le Catch said,
May 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm
So enf…….correct me if I’m wrong….there is too much information to digest so you are making an ill-informed no vote? Would it not be better to abstain?
enf said,
May 14, 2008 at 3:52 pm
An ill informed no vote is better than an ill informed yes vote.
To abstain would be to give up my democratic right to vote because the government didn’t have enough respect for the voter to set out what we are voting for.
I doubt if anyone knows exactly what they are voting for. Not without a month to study it.
Andrew Lawlor said,
May 14, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Firstly, Enf, today being May 14th and the referendum being held on June 12th, you do have just about a month to study the Lisbon treaty. I would make again my point that to vote yes or no one does not necessarily need to read the treaty from cover to cover, just as voters in 1972 did not need to read the Treaty of Rome in its enirety to make an informed decision on joining the then EEC. There is, as I have said, an overload of information available to you now as you sit at your computer reading this comment. Just open a new web tab and google ‘lisbon treaty’ and you will get 381,000 responses. The Irish Times is running a useful series every day this week on the treaty. The treaty is discussed almost daily on Morning Ireland, Drivetime, and many other programs on radio. Also, unlike the voters of 1972, we have thirty five years of European experience to assist us in our decision. My advice to you, Enf, if I may, would be to inform yourself and then make an informed decision.
One thing that I noticed today, as I drove around Dublin, Meath, Louth and Westmeath, was that I did not see one poster advocating a yes vote which did not include the name of the group or individual calling for that vote. However, in contrast, all of the posters calling for a no vote were anonymous.
Is there not some kind of legislation which dictates that those running campaigns in elections and referendums must be cleary identified? Is there a spending limit imposed for referenda as there is for general elections? Answers on a poster please to…
Liam said,
May 14, 2008 at 11:59 pm
I noticed that too, Andrew, on the posters all around Dublin – I think it is written but in the tiniest writing that is impossible to read from the ground looking up at the lamp post. I tried it today but couldn’t make out what was written.
A lot of the NO posters look like Labour posters also.
enf said,
May 15, 2008 at 12:59 am
I am not saying it specifically for myself. I already know how I want to vote. My point is that Mr and Mrs Joe Soap are not going to bother their arses working out which way to vote.
This apathy will swing the vote towards yes.
Yes to what I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows for sure.
One thing I do know is that if we get it “wrong” it will be sent back so we get it “right”.
Andrew Lawlor said,
May 15, 2008 at 8:13 am
We will always have the odinary Joes and Josephines who take no interest in who runs their lives or how they do it. There are people who will never engage with the process and no amount of information will help them.
Absolutely agree that, a la Nice, we will be asked to keep voting until we get it right. In the first Nice vote I voted yes but I accepted the democratic result and so consequently voted no when theissue was, wrongly, put to a re-vote.
enf said,
May 15, 2008 at 8:49 pm
well if we leave Joe and Josephine and future generations in ignorance we will just have an idiocracy.
Sarah said,
May 15, 2008 at 9:58 pm
ok Fianna Fail are up 5 points. I give up. VOTE NO.
The Crabling Otter » Lisbon and Me said,
May 16, 2008 at 1:38 pm
[...] Sarah Carey made a throw-away post a few days ago about not being around to vote on the treaty and I was all set to make a funny retort when I saw the comments ahead of me. Pete had asked what the Treaty was all about and Sarah gave a lengthly, informed and intelligent response, which I found quite helpful (further evidence that when you reply to a comment on your blog, you are not just replying to one person). A debate was sparked in the comments section of the post and I was quickly in over my head. [...]
Darren said,
May 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Well, I’m an average Joe and I was really struggling to get to grips with the whole thing. I’ve spent the whole morning (and some of yesterday evening) trying to get to grips with Lisbon and, while I understand what’s involved in it now, I’m still not sure if I’m a YES or a NO. Here’s my post on it.
John said,
May 16, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I wonder do some people think that FG and Labour are too nice.Why are Enda Kenny and Ruari Quinn are spending hours at the Forum for Europe leading the charge of the Yes side? FF must be having a laugh. When did FF give a helping hand to FG over a Referendum?
Tomaltach said,
May 16, 2008 at 5:20 pm
In a substantial post on my own site I have attempted to refute some of the key claims made by different factions within the NO camp:
http://fichefocal.blogspot.com/2008/05/there-have-been-some-very-impressive.html
Electron said,
May 16, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Tomaltach, the taxation issue is of major concern – the French and Germans are very unhappy with the present arrangement and harmonization will always be on their agenda. I make my living from Europe, so I’m not anti, but I do know the feelings on the ground and they aren’t to be ignored. The fact that Europe is to become a legal entity, is the first step towards harmonization in all critical areas and that’s not in our interest.
Tomaltach said,
May 16, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Electron,
The European commission makes no secret of the fact that it views a Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (or CCTB, which is not quite the same as tax harmonisation but would likely have a huge effect on Ireland nonetheless) as a major step forward in completing the ideal of a common, undistorted market. The Germans and French too are in favour of this kind of development. But the fact remains that Lisbon does not open up this possibility any more than it remains under the current arragements. Therefore, No camp arguments that somehow Lisbon paves the way for tax harmonisation are wrong. The issue of CCTB is not going to go away, but will have to be resisted in Ireland’s case by employing the safeguards that are already there and more important, by building an alliance against it (which likely will include the UK, Ireland, and a number of Eastern European countries, plus perhaps, Sweden for different reasons.)
Crocodile said,
May 16, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Tomaltach’s analysis is very helpful. I’m particularly interested in his contention that Europe has been good for workers’ rights and that labour has benefited from protective legislation rather than suffered through the EU’s promotion of ‘competition’. I suppose Joe Higgins sees the direction things seem to have been going in the last few years and makes the connection with EU competition policy, like farmers look at the trade talks and see a threat. I wonder if, in both cases, the fears are based more on the known personal preferences and political form of the respective commissioners – Mandelson and McCreevy – than on actual EU policy.
Tom N said,
May 17, 2008 at 7:52 am
Excellent summary – where was it when I was doing my EU law exam?
No voters are contrarians as you rightly point out. Even if one said he/she would abstain, I wouldn’t trust them. Work on the laws of probability that a good percentage of no voters will be out of the country too.
Electron said,
May 17, 2008 at 10:55 am
Tomaltach, you admit that the corporation tax issue is alive and would be disastrous for Ireland. I believe that Lisbon doesn’t deal with this particular area, but it is an attempt towards further integration and that, in turn, strengthens the position of the policy makers who will push for further integration and so on. By voting no, we have a chance to slow down the inevitable in order to get our own act together. As it stands, we are a type of bridge between the US and the EU and this have been very good for us, but all this will change as we will be forced to abandon our present economic and other connections to the US. So, voting no will slow down the integration process and give us some time to work out how we intend to survive without the US – maybe we’ll survive on handouts – there isn’t much dignity in that. Tread carefully, we are only a cash wealthy country and we need some serious thinking about our future direction. Our current politicians, let us down badly with their handling of the housing market within the EMU framework – not a clue how to manage it – can we trust them with our future?
Tomaltach said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Electron,
Your point about integration is well taken. There is no question but Lisbon is a further step in terms of integration. But, I would argue, a baby step not a giant step when compared with the distance already travelled by Europe in terms of political, economic, and legal integration. The EU has undertaken an extraordinary journey, from the Treaty of Rome and a largely economic agenda, up to Nice at which point some social and military matters were on the agenda. Along the way there is deep economic integration in the customs union, the single market, and for the majority, monetary integration.
Taken in this context, if we mean integration to mean more power and competence going to Union level, Lisbon is certainly not a large step. The No camp talk of 60 areas under QMV. In fact, about half of these are already there. Furthermore, a closer look at the ‘new’ list of QMV areas reveals not a long list of 30 fields where competence is ceded from current unanimity to QMV. Instead, there are several new items which are not competence areas but procedural arising from the other changes in Lisbon such as electing the President of the Council and the High Representative of Foreign Affairs. Moreover, in a number of other areas now appearing as QMV, Ireland has opted out – such as immigration, justice and policing, border checks and a couple more which I cannot now recall now. Having said that, yes, there are new areas of competence moving to QMV such as tourism, humanitarian aid – not critical strategic areas. And it should be remember that in these latter areas the EU does not have sole competence but rather shared competence with the member states. Looked at in this was, the longer list of areas where we will not have a veto is not nearly as frightening as some would have us believe.
True, the appointment of President and Foreign Affairs Representative – which they in reality will not be powerful positions, has a certain symbolic significance about how far integration has gone. But really and truly there are only reflective of what has already happened.
The Reduced size of the commission doesn’t represent further integration, and the powers of the Union parliament and of the member parliaments are enhanced.
When all is said and done, I don’t believe that the steps being taken will alter the outcome or timeline, both of which remain unknown, regarding CCTB. I would argue, however, that given the widespread resistance to CCTB among certain states, there is some way to go and any moves in that direction will be phased very very slowly indeed.
But none of this removes the challenge facing Ireland in finding an alternative economic strategy, or a backup strategy. Even if CCTB never arrives formally, the fact that other Eastern European countries have now mimicked our approach may reduce its effectiveness here over time. That is a huge debate in itself, but one which is not really affected by Lisbon.
Semper Idem » Blog Archive » Lisbon vote - One month to go said,
May 17, 2008 at 5:10 pm
[...] Carey is looking for no voter to abstain on the vote, as she won’t be around to vote yes. Credo, Catholic Journal encourages us [...]
Head Rambles » Blog Archive » Is the Lisbon Treaty a con? said,
May 18, 2008 at 10:41 am
[...] have read other peoples’ analysis. Sara Carey has had some good debating on her site, and Darren has been doing some excellent detailed [...]
Longman Oz said,
May 18, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Why do I get the feeling that Enf may well be a wolf in sheep’s clothing? He starts out with the innocent “if its too hard to understand, better to play it safe” argument that might appeal to confused elderly voters and then, bit by bit, there seems a lot more propaganda in his back pocket for voting “no” than the ordinary casually-informed not-certain voter!
In general, I have been very interested in the campaign run by the “no” campaign. Very media savvy and certainly well versed in the emotional appeal. My big beef with them is their shadowy approach. No one seems to know who they really are (what is a “businessman” after all, other than some vaguely reassuring word?), who is financing them and coaching them, and I fail to see how many of them are publicly accountable for the opinions that they are given so much media time to express.
My own declaration of interest is that I am not a member of any political organisation. I vote when I am in the country, but have never voted for the same political party twice in a row. I am pro-Europe in principle, but remain undecided on this issue. In short, a floating, confused voter!
enf said,
May 18, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Not a wolf. Just a voter that is concerned that we are giving up our democracy without a fight.
I vote a la carte. I am affiliated with no political party but would be firmly left leaning. I still don’t understand the treaty. I am not trying to appeal to anyone. I Do Not Understand It. I understand the broad strokes but I don’t understand the detail. The devil (if he exists) is in the detail. This is just a mass of gobblydegook that we are being scared into voting for.
We are not voting to stay in Europe or giving a verdict on how the EU project is. Nor are we voting on staying in the EU. What we are voting for is the removal of democracy and representation from the EU. The clocks won’t stop and we won’t be booted out. My brother the civil servant mightn’t get fresh waffles in Brussels when he goes on a jolly to the HQ but that will be the extent of the backlash.
As far as I can see the treaty is a crock and we are being sold a pup. I was wavering but now I will be voting no.
And if its put back to us like the Nice treaty was so democratically re-run I will vote no again. It is my democratic right. If the EU is unhappy with me voting then I think we need to leave.
Tony Allwright said,
May 18, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Your analysis, Sarah, amounts to vote YES to Lisbon for just five : mostly very thin : reasons.
1. Enlargement means new rules are needed because the EU is becoming unwieldy : though all the evidence is that EU legislation-making has become MORE slick not less since enlargement, so no new rules are in fact needed. See for example this Charlemagne article in the Economist, http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=3833071&story_id=8998372
2. It reduces our commissioner-count but we’ll be no worse than anyone else. Why is it nevertheless good to reduce our commissioner-count?
3. No need to worry about harmonisation of direct taxes, defence, abortion, neutrality or agriculture. It’s great that retention of two vetoes defends those tax and defence worries. But if retaining two vetoes is so valuable, why is it also supposed to be great to surrender no fewer than 32 other vetoes?
4. A prosecutor will chase up fraud issues : and this from an outfit whose multi-billion €uro accounts have not been audited for fourteen years because the EU is rife with institutionalised crookery. I wouldn’t expect much from the fraud-chasers.
5. New laws and institutions will prosecute cross-border trafficking in drugs and humans : very laudable but we don’t need a Lisbon treaty for that.
The (insuperable) task the YES advocates face is that the onus is on THEM to make the case for change, and they simply cannot do it, as you yourself demonstrate in your five-item shopping list. Moreover, the deliberately obscure language is designed to prevent the case being made because it is obviously so dodgy.
It is not up to the Naysayers to disprove Lisbon : they are innocent until proven guilty.
If the YESsirs can’t make a convincing case, any mature person will vote NO. NO to Lisbon, but this is at the same time a big YES to the EU as currently constituted.
Tomaltach said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:35 am
I would like to respond to a couple of points in Tony Allright’s comment.
First, the logic of reducing the commissioner count is that there are too many. Take a look at the commissioner website and see the overlaps that already exist. People say, well look, there are 100 members in the US Senate. But the senate passes legislation – which the Commission does not do. The commission proposes legislation which it believes forwards the aims and objectives of the union. More important it is then responsible for seeing that any legislation which does pass (Parliament and Council) is implemented. The Commissioner therefore is essentially the executive, the Cabinet if you like. Compare with the US cabinet which currently consists of 15 senior heads of departments.
The thinking since before Nice was that in the event of enlargement (which hadn’t then taken place) there had to be caps on the size of both parliament and the executive, otherwise the thing just keeps growing without limit.
The second thing I’d mention is the “surrender of 32 vetoes”. Take a closer look. In fact, many of these area are new and were never present before Lisbon, so there was no case of having a veto. Many of them are procedural (electing President of Council or High Representative, Changes to the composition of the committee of the Regions, Judicial Appointments Panel, Appointment of senior members of ECB) Many others seem to me not to be the most strategically critical in terms of protecting our interests – urgent aid to third countries, humanitarian operations. All told the new areas which operate under QMV look a lot less striking when examined a little closer.
Final point I’d address in Tony Allright’s comment. It is very laudable to enact new laws and create new institutions, he wrote, to tackle cross border traffic in drugs and humans, but we don’t need Lisbon for that. What do we need? The heads of state and governments negotiated this guts of this deal over a five or 6 year period. They with their advisers agreed that Lisbon should be the vehicle for this. But now Mr Allright has another idea. He wouldn’t do it that way, though he doesn’t say how?
The other point worth mentioning here is that on the vast bulk of substantial measures on Freedom, Security, and Justice, for better or for worse, Ireland and the Uk have opted out, with the possibility of engaging in these areas little by little down the line.
enf said,
May 19, 2008 at 9:48 am
The bottom line is that democracy is inconvenient. So lets get rid of it. If you vote yes you are on the “right side” and if you vote no you are a “spoilsport, ruining it for everyone else”.
Maybe Gene Kerrigan is no longer on fire because he has criticised this treaty and the way it has been presented?
Electron said,
May 19, 2008 at 2:26 pm
According to yesterday’s Sunday Times – this will be the last referendum that we will ever get on Europe’s future. Turkeys and Christmas comes to mind!
Tony Allwright said,
May 19, 2008 at 3:19 pm
In responding to me, Tomaltach made a good case for reducing thecommissioner-count from the current 27. But the point I raised is what’s in it for Ireland to reduce our(ie Ireland’s) commissioner-count? The YESsirs have not made such a case.
Maybe the 32 vetoes aren’t as important as tax and defence, but why is it good for Ireland to surrender them? Not for efficiency, because the EU is working fine right now despite all those vetoes. Againk, the YESsirs have not made the case.
Finally, how would I “enact new laws and create new institutions to tackle cross border traffic in drugs and humans“? By using the existing law-making institution-creating EU machinery. They do this stuff all the time; it doesn’t require a new treaty/constitution.
Tomaltach said,
May 19, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Electron,
In short, article 48 of Lisbon provides that if changes are to be made they need to be ratified by all member states or for smaller measures, agreed under power of veto.
The decision whether a measure for ratification (or for that matter some brand new treaty) is put to the people is entirely up to the government.
It is a common misconception that as things stand currently, all EU agreements need to be put to the people. For a start, in our original constitution of 1937, sovereignty in International Affairs lay with our Government and the Dáil. There was no automatic requirement to consult the people. The Crotty judgement of 1987, as I understand it, found that treaties containing certain provisions such as common foreign policy need to be approved by the people. Not every Eu provision therefore would require a referendum. But it has been the practice of governments since to put all major Eu treaties to the people just in case. In fact, constitutionally this is a grey area and it would seem that no government would want to run the risk of ratifying a Treaty to then have that ratification constitutionally challenged.
In short, we never have had an absolute right to a referendum on all international treaties. Lisbon doesn’t change that and explicitly requires that no further competence can be transferred to the Union without “being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements”. For areas where no new competence is transferred but where, say a further area is to be transferred from unanimity to QMV, each nation retains a veto.
Tomaltach said,
May 19, 2008 at 3:47 pm
In reply to Tony Allright. First, I think the use of the derogatory label YESsirs for those who are arguing in favour of reforming the EU says a good deal about Mr Allright’s attitude. Clearly, instead of marshalling evidence, he finds it more convenient to employ the more debased tactic of name calling.
That acknowledge, I’d like to return to the debate itself. As I said many of the new EU QMV measures are procedural. While the EU seems to be working better with 27 members than expected, it is clearly expedient to free issues such as the election of the Council President from future squabbles that unanimity would inevitibly bring. The elected representatives of 27 nations agreed that this was a compromise they were willing to make so that the Union wouldn’t fall into deadlocks in the future – a situation to be avoided because it weakens it. Furthermore, while the addition of 12 new states hasn’t blocked the council so far, it is reasonable to assume that as the new members grow into their new dispensation they will be more willing and able, as they should be and as the Western nations are, to assert their membership in a more forceful manner. In such a situation, it seems sensible to change non critical or procedural areas to QMV.
On the issue of cross border traffic. Mr Allright, half serious, half mocking suggests using the existing EU machinery. (Half mocking because he says institution making machinery). Well yes, and no. Yes, there could be (and is) a degree of co-operation on cross border policiing as is. But Lisbon does three things:
1. It adds clarity in this area by spelling out those areas that the Union is interested in reaching co-operation on. It delimits for example those areas which are a reality in cross border organised crime today and in which it would like to further co-operation:terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, organised crime.
2. It sets out minimum standards or broad principles that should be adhered to by procedures in any state which would be followed before any co-operation is implemented.
3. It sets out a kind of framework that needs to be somehow mutually recognisable across states in terms of evidence, arrest warrant, rights of victims, and other aspects of criminal procedure.
Basically it gives far more clarify and indeed far more than the limited scope that was there already to achieve the objective of tackling serious cross border crime.
Tomaltach said,
May 19, 2008 at 4:11 pm
And I wanted to add regarding the commission. Mr Allright acknowlegdes the validity of the argument that overall the commission should be reduced. But he argues that this doesn’t mean our commmissioner should be rotated. This is where armchair idealsim clashes with the mill of political reality. “Alright” Ireland’s Taoiseach cries “you crowd can rotate your commissioners equally, but we’re keeping ours”. He might as well add “oh, and we’re keeping our veto on those new areas, but you can do all the voting you want”. Among 27 members, I think we all know where that kind of approach to negotiation would lead – nowhere.
Tony Allwright said,
May 19, 2008 at 6:29 pm
First “YESsirs” (originally YESers) is meant to be amusing not derogatory. But since I couldn’t think of something childish for the NOers, I called them Naysayers, arguably also derogatory.
Also, as a Naysayer I don’t have to “marshall evidence“; I am quite happy with the EU as it is, in fact I am wildly enthusiastic about it and the €uro.
I am waiting to be convinced of the case for change. And by the way, I have to admit that Tomaltach’s arguments favouring QMV (and thus surrendering multiple vetoes) are rather well put. Pity they’re not so obvious from the treaty text itself.
I can see why leaders of countries en-masse might want to make particular changes such as reducing the number of commissioners, but if the Irish are to vote on this they need to be convinced it is good for Ireland. Let the others make their own decisions in their own best interests; that’s not Ireland’s job.
I repeat that the current EU is not merely “working better than expected” compared with pre-enlargement. It is in fact working 25% better in absolute terms, in getting legislation and so forth agreed. Maybe the embarrassment of exercising vetoes constrains their irresponsible use, I don’t know. Anyway, smoother functioning is no argument for Lisbon. We have that already.
Sarah said,
May 19, 2008 at 7:36 pm
In desperate rush (off to Navan to a meeting of the IFA to hear Mairead McGuinness explain the WTO talks). I’ve had one thought today about Lisbon, on hearing that yet another contract is awarded to another US company which has a track record of fraud, and a morning listening to LMFM and the calls of people who just got letters address to their dead relations WHO DIED OF CANCER telling them their chest X-rays are being reviewed..
FUCK FIANNA FAIL AND FUCK THEIR REFERENDUM WHY SHOULD WE ENDORSE ANYTHING THEY DO?
And where the FUCK did the Irish Times get off saying this in their editorial on Saturday?
“Mr Cowen made a passionate case for the treaty on his election; Enda Kenny still has to do so.”
The FF campaign really only launched last week. Dick Roche has been campaign single handedly on their side. Kenny has been out campaigning and attending public meetings for 3 months.
The content of Lisbon is sound. The smugness of this government needs to be shaken up.
enf said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:09 pm
I hate to say it but we re-elect them over and over again.
They shunted Bertie to the side to get this treaty through. They knew that if his thing dragged on and on we would turn on them.
The HSE has a license to kill and is not afraid to use it.
Sarah said,
May 19, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Ahem.
Yes, well, I’m just back from a meeting. Mairead McGuinness was on her feet for an hour and a half explaining Lisbon and the WTO talks to the Meath Executive of the IFA. What an energetic, well-informed, articulate,charming and nice woman. The best Mary Coughlan can come up with is “Well, didn’t yiz get plenty of money from Europe in the past, not really on to say No now”. McGuinness was measured and persuasive on the detail.
One of her main points is that much of what is in Lisbon was agreed in Nice but that Lisbon is about the detail.
I don’t know what informs Tony, but McGuinness was enthusiastic about the need for changes. The EU is no longer 15, it is 27. We don’t need 27 commissioners. We decided in Nice to limit it to 18. Lisbon simply works out the detail, ie the rotation compromise in order to achieve the 18.
We haven’t lost anything. We, a country of 4 million are equal in status to Germany, a country of 84 million. Trying to persuade people that we have “lost” something is simply wrong.
Lisbon narrows the “democratic deficit” by giving more power to our representatives in the EP and including the national parliaments at an earlier stage of the legislative process.
But let me address one of Tony’s points
“if the Irish are to vote on this they need to be convinced it is good for Ireland. Let the others make their own decisions in their own best interests; that’s not Ireland’s job.”
What a mean minded argument. Why isn’t it our job to think of what is best for Europe as a whole? Why shouldn’t we lead the way to a more peaceful and prosperous Europe and offer others the opportunities that we were offered? Wars break out over nationalism, trade, food and raw material consumption. The EC/EU project works out these issues in a fantastically representative way. My father is just back from Serbia where he says the scars – the psychological and democratic scars – of their recent wars are still visible and damaging. The EU didn’t cover itself in glory when those wars were taking place – but if we can get those countries into the Union, look at the comfort and the opportunity it gives to those people.
Much of Lisbon seeks to enforce laws, GOOD laws about the environment. Why shouldn’t we do everything in our power to see that those are given the fullest support so that EVERYONE in Europe has a better future?
Ireland has a huge opportunity to be a leader. Only the meanest, narrow sort of thinking sees it solely in terms of what we can get out of it for ourselves.
Look after yourselves and No. 1? A Fianna Fail way of thinking. Screw them.
I’m back onside.
Tomaltach said,
May 20, 2008 at 9:23 am
Sarah,
Hurray! You’re back!
It surely is tempting to give the government a bloody nose – but in fact, it’s our nose that would be bloody after cutting it off to spite the face (if one accepts that Lisbon is the right choice)
As Enf points out – we elected this government – over and over. We had our chance to stop them in their tracks with their health privatisation. We passed it up.
Electron said,
May 20, 2008 at 9:52 am
“The EU is no longer 15, it is 27. We don’t need 27 commissioners” this is a seriously worrying point – with 500 million comprising 27 different cultures. We need our man on the inside to keep an eye on proceedings – five years is a lifetime in a rapidly changing world.
Martin Manseargh told Vincent Browne the other night that the reason for all the junior ministers was that senior ministers were away in Brussels for some of the time and that they need the juniors to manage the home front – if 4 million takes so much managing, what would 500 million take?
enf said,
May 20, 2008 at 10:00 am
We elected them through thick and thicker. Incompetence and arrogance are no barrier to being re-elected.
Look at the mindless return of Bev (face for radio) Flynn in Mayo, Wednesday Wallace in Meath East and doubtless many others around the country who promise little and deliver nothing.
Our politicians are the dregs that weren’t smart enough to emigrate and stayed to manage the old and the old fashioned. The Ireland of the 70’s and 80’s
Ireland is not full of old people and the old fashioned. We have an underrepresented 10% of our population who are immigrants with no vote and a disenfranchised vote under 35 who just go to work and get on with it and ignore the rambling and horse trading politicians.
Don’t even get me started on the Greens. Poachers turned gamekeepers. I would never vote for them after selling out like they have.
What I am trying to say is that a lot of people care what is going on but a lot keep their heads down and just get on with life. That is what FF depends on. Apathy.
Sarah said,
May 20, 2008 at 10:02 am
Electron
you’ve got that ALL WRONG.
The commissioner is NOT our man – he is appointed to look after the interests of ALL European citizens in a particular field e.g. agriculture, competition, social affairs.
Our specific national interests are looked after by the particular Minister at the Council of Ministers.
SO if the EU is negotiating legislation proposed by the Commisison in relation to the environment then all the ministers of the Environment from each member state meet and negotiate it. Then the legislation has be passed by the Parliament in which our MEPs have a say. And of course, FG is a member of the EP, one of the biggest and most influential parties.
THAT’s why Mansergh was able to say the ministers are so preoccupied with Europe.
The commissioners DO NOT represent the country.
one more point, when Ministers say “oh Europe did this” they are being very disingenuous since THEY approved of it at the Council. NOW they won’t have that excuse since under Lisbon the proposed legislation will go to the national parliaments first where national reps will have an input. No more blaming Europe after the fact since we’ll get an opportunity to debate it before the fact.
Tomaltach said,
May 20, 2008 at 10:33 am
Each commissioner operates on behalf of the Union as laid out in the Treaties. Her or she cannot take direction from a national government. Perhaps more important is how the Commission works. The Commissioner is essentially like a minister at the head of a department. Within that department the are the Directorates General – who are like the chief secretary in a department here. The DGs and their teams prepare the technical information for the commissioner and in that sense have quite a lot of power. But the commissioner also has a small ‘office’ of 6 advisors which provide him or her with political advice. It has become increasingly the practice that not all of the office can be from the same nationality.
In the end of the day, this civil service and their commissioners come up with proposals. And those proposals can only be made law by the either the Council or the Council and Parliament acting together. Since the proposals, like those emanating from any civil service, are born in a bureacracy, it is essential to have democratic oversight and amendedments or rejectsion as necessary. This is where Lisbon brings three significant advantages:
1.The Council must meet in public when scrutinising/adopting legislation
2.The European Parliament has an increased role as it’s approval with council becomes the default way of making law
3. The National Parliaments are kept involved by being informed in advance and by have a vote on certain key areas.
In my opinion these latter developments significantly outweigh the move to a rotating commission.
Tomaltach said,
May 20, 2008 at 10:35 am
Oops, comment clash, just restating a lot of what Sarah has already said.
Sarah said,
May 20, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Tomaltach, your comments are very well informed. What’s your story?
Tomaltach said,
May 20, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Sarah,
No story other than one of the aspects of politics that interests me is the shape of political institutions. In particular I love to burrow into the detail of constitutions and rules, how they work in practice and what influence these have on how a place is governed in reality. It’s in this context that I got interested in the mechanisms of the EU quite a few years back and I have read fairly widely on its evolution. The EU has been a particularly interesting beast for political scientists, because its evolution is unique and its institutional framework such a hybrid, and so there’s quite a bit of material, and significant disagreement, on which theoretical model is the best fit.
The short answer : I’m an anorak!
GUBU » More Lisbon said,
May 27, 2008 at 10:59 am
[...] original post is getting old (and with 90 comments too much to scroll through!) though those interested should [...]